Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Ethics in agricultural research.Paul B. Thompson - 1988 - Journal of Agricultural Ethics 1 (1):11-20.
    Utilitarian ethics provides a model for evaluating moral responsibility in agricultural research decisions according to the balance of costs and benefits accruing to the public at large. Given the traditions and special requirements of agricultural research planning, utilitarian theory is well adapted to serve as a starting point for evaluating these decisions, but utilitarianism has defects that are well documented in the philosophical literature. Criticisms of research decisions in agricultural mechanization and biotechnology correspond to documented defects in utilitarian theory. Research (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A Place for Cost‐Benefit Analysis.David Schmidtz - 2001 - Philosophical Issues 11 (1):148-171.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • In Defence of Bad Science and Irrational Policies: an Alternative Account of the Precautionary Principle.Stephen John - 2010 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):3-18.
    In the first part of the paper, three objections to the precautionary principle are outlined: the principle requires some account of how to balance risks of significant harms; the principle focuses on action and ignores the costs of inaction; and the principle threatens epistemic anarchy. I argue that these objections may overlook two distinctive features of precautionary thought: a suspicion of the value of “full scientific certainty”; and a desire to distinguish environmental doings from allowings. In Section 2, I argue (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • A Place for Cost-Benefit Analysis.David Schmidtz - 2001 - Noûs 35 (s1):148 - 171.
    What next? We are forever making decisions. Typically, when unsure, we try to identify, then compare, our options. We weigh pros and cons. Occasionally, we make the weighing explicit, listing pros and cons and assigning numerical weights. What could be wrong with that? In fact, things sometimes go terribly wrong. This paper considers what cost-benefit analysis can do, and also what it cannot.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations